Eaves scores in the WashPost

A Holy-Roller Democrat
By Dan Gilgoff
Sunday, April 29, 2007; Page B03

Frank Melton

Jackson, MS. mayor has been acquitted of charges stemming from bashing the living daylights out of a "crack house" and using children to do most of the bashing. Like many of us believed, a Jackson jury wouldn't find him guilty, hating crack houses like we do.

Even so, this man is out of control. He is high-profile and busy, and Jacksonians apparently love it. Meanwhile, crime on his watch is substantially up and businesses are leaving town. There is no revival of spirits concerning the city, only a revival of the Buford Pusser reputation of its mayor.

I am a Jacksonian, and I am staying put. But no one questions any longer those who high tail it out of town to the burbs. If there are fools, it is probably those of us who stay while a council member talked this morning about raising millage to finally fix the problem. The problem is a mayor without a leadership clue. Raise billions more and apply it to our "problems" and that won't be fixed.

All this makes good TV for Geraldo, but a bad future for The Bold New City. And don't be fooled, his embarrassing antics are hardly over. Egocentricity finds a way...

Why the increasing animosity towards Christianity?

Is it possible that a dearth of Christ-like characteristics -- such as integrity, holiness, forgiveness, compassion -- among believers is turning off "the world" to Christianity? Surely not.

OneNewsNow.com recently asked its Internet readers: What is the primary cause of the increasing animosity toward Christianity?

Readers said:

Anti-Christian media (39.58%)
Liberal public education (30.61%)
Political correctness (13.59%)
Indifference to religion (11.63%)
Anti-Christian politicians (4.59%)

On the Mississippi talk-radio show that I host, I asked the audience if a sixth answer might be appropriate. How about "Christians"? Could believers themselves be the primary cause of the "increasing animosity"?

OneNewsNow's poll was unscientific by polling standards. So were the answers to the talk show inquiry. But that day on the airwaves, 100% agreed that the Church has caused negative perceptions by:

• Lackadaisical response and/or silence in the face of national moral decline
• Mirroring the world's values
• Rank hypocrisy -- we talk a good talk, but our walk is well worth criticizing
• Powerless living
• Anemic involvement in addressing the nation's problems

Is there an antidote to the Church causing loathing among the wider populace?

The audience thought so -- integrity, for starters. Talk holiness, but live it even more. Forgive those who wrong you and wrong the culture. Reach out to the unlovable and the "untouchables" of our age with Christ-like compassion. Quit saying that prayer is the most important thing and act like it really is. Be humble.

Like most talk-radio conversations, it all came out a little choppy. But there is wisdom here.

I once participated in a televised, four-person panel discussing my community -- Jackson, Mississippi. The city council was in disarray as the president of the council and another councilman were headed off to jail. The council president, for his part, had made a behind-the-back deal with a strip club for the purposes of a re-zoning ordinance, was caught and found guilty of the crime, and was subsequently sent to a correctional facility.

The moderator, a local newscaster named Katina Rankin, looked at me during the give-and-take and, trying to get a rise out of me, asked, "Matt, whose fault is all of this?"

Mission accomplished. I suddenly became agitated. My face began to get red and I prepared to launch into a tirade about how we are a nation of laws and how the city council president had looked at that law, trampled on it, and tried to get some cash flow he had no right to have as a public official. If we were looking for culprits there was only one place to put the blame -- smack dab in the council president's lap as he sat in his well-deserved jail cell.

That is what I was going to say.

But I never got the words out. One of the panelists sitting next to me was a gentleman named John Perkins -- author, teacher, community developer, national evangelical leader, Christian statesman. As my index finger stiffened and my blood pressure rose, I prepared to answer Ms. Rankin when Dr. Perkins intervened before I got a word out.

"It's my fault," he answered Rankin.

All heads, quizzically, turned his way.

"I have lived in this community for decades as a Bible teacher," he said. "I should have been able to create an environment where what our council president did would have been unthinkable because of my efforts.

"You want someone to blame? I'll take the blame."

You could have heard a pin drop. Part of the silence was mine as I reflected on my own lack of involvement.

Whose fault? Our fault. And that is something we can change.

Court Backs Ban on Abortion Procedure

This, of course, is a great step in the right direction.

Moral polar opposite of abortion

The Anchoress (via Locusts and Honey) tells the stories of two mothers with cancer who declined treatment in order to give birth to healthy babies:

Today I read two such stories, one here:

HONOLULU — The family of Sharnell Onaga has announced she died on Tuesday night. Onaga found out she had leukemia when she became pregnant. She decided to have the child, and refused to undergo chemotherapy.

Onaga had two children and discovered she had leukemia when she was nine weeks pregnant with her third…She gave birth on Dec. 4. “Sarah is 4 months old and just doing wonderfully. She’s in perfect health and obviously a very special baby,” Onaga family friend Cissy Boyer said. Onaga hoped for a cord blood transplant, but developed an infection.

and here.

NASHVILLE, – On Thursday, February 15, at the age of 31, Jennifer Ann Carlisle gave up her life to cancer after refusing an abortion that doctors told her might have extended her life.

Jennifer had been diagnosed with ovarian cancer in 2005. At two months gestation, long before any chance of saving the child’s life outside the womb, Jennifer was told that she would die from the soccer ball-sized tumour if she did not abort the baby.

“Even though the doctors did say it would extend her life to have the abortion, she and her husband made the decision to let God choose,” said Carol Day, Jennifer’s mother. “They decided God would make that decision, not her,” Jennifer’s aunt, Jackie Murdock, told the Niles Daily Star. “She wouldn’t decide somebody else’s life.”

[…]

Gabriel Carlisle was born in January 2006 and Jennifer underwent aggressive chemotherapy but after a brief summer remission, her condition worsened. She attended church services Sunday February 11, and died the following week.

Two remarkable women whose example of selflessness, and whose ability to look beyond the “here-and-now” will be influencing their families for a long time. I’m sure not everyone reading this will find their decisions “admirable,” but I am humbled by them. And I am gratified by their reminder that all of us - loved into purposeful being by a Creator full of Intention, have our lives to live, for as long as we may.

I wrote way back when:

Although the reflexively Pro-life might consider this sort of sacrifice a no-brainer, I am always awe-struck when I read of this sort of woman. Not because I think she is a rarity, but because I think most mothers understand what [these women] did, even though many - particularly men who imagine themselves with a child and no wife - might question the “sense” of it. How can a woman with a family let herself die, and leave them without her help, her love, her guidance, her nurturing?

But many mothers know what it is like to stand at the bedside of a child whose lungs sound like rattletrap jalopies and pray, “let me have this illness, instead, please heal my baby…”

[…]

I do not mean to imply that fathers are incapable of making this same prayer, only that in the case of women I do believe it’s a prayer that comes to us very quickly and instinctively.

[…]

There is the endless debate: what is “worth” more, and therefore more important: a helpless baby or a helpmeet wife? It’s an awful choice, but one that must sometimes be made. Does a woman look at her husband and her other children and say, “let me destroy this one, because I cannot bear to leave these others - how will they go on without me…” thus making a choice that no one could compassionately gainsay (who among us would want to be in that untenable position) and choosing abortion and treatment for her illness? Or does she say, “I know the love that came into the world through my marriage, and through these children, and the treatment may not save me, anyway…and I cannot get in the way of the coming of more love…” and sacrifice herself?

I suppose to do this takes a servile mindset - a mindset that says, “maybe this is all the life I am supposed to have, maybe this is all the time God intended for me, and so I will obediently make room for this new life, because I trust Him…” That is a mindset that is profoundly misunderstood in this era. It is a mindset thought foolish and unsophisticated and wrong, by many.

Really, I guess what it it comes down to is faith, and trust that in sacrificing oneself, one is not leaving the rest un-tended to, un-nurtured, un-watched. It comes down to the great Mystery that we are all invited to explore, if we are only open to it. And the key to the Mystery is Love.

For some reason, all of this makes me think of the Parable of the Two Sons: Jesus asked, “What is your opinion? A man had two sons. He came to the first and said, ‘Son, go out and work in the vineyard today. The son said in reply, ‘I will not,’ but afterwards he changed his mind and went. The man came to the other son and gave the same order. He said in reply, ‘Yes, sir,’ but did not go. Which of the two did his father’s will?” They answered, “The first.” Jesus said to them, “Amen, I say to you, tax collectors and prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God before you.”

[Some women who make this choice might be] staunch secularist[s] who - urged and instructed by Love - hooked into the Mystery and made [their] choice. But in doing so, [they have] also hooked into the message of the Christ: Greater love hath no man than to lay down his life for another. Does it matter whether or not [such a mother] is Christian? Not really. What mattered [is being] open to Love, in its coming and it its going.

Good governing principles

Forest Thigpen, of the Mississippi Center for Public Policy, says these are the principles by which we should govern ourselves. Why do you think? And click here for the "why" of these principles.

Governing Principles

1. Government exists to protect rights, not to create them.

2. The legitimate power of government begins and ends with the people, while its authority comes from the Creator.

3. Just because a problem exists doesn't mean government should try to solve it.
4. Long-term and cumulative consequences should be considered more carefully than short-term benefits.

5. Government has nothing to give anyone except what it first takes from someone else.

6. Individuals are ultimately responsible for governing themselves and for the consequences of their decisions.

7. Free enterprise, not government, is the engine of personal economic prosperity.

8. The free market should not be distorted by government-designed dictates or advantages.

9. Government has the high honor and responsibility to protect, fortify, and advance the marriage-based two-parent family, which is the foundational unit of society.

10. Parents, not government, are responsible for the education and upbringing of their children.

Kathryn Jean Lopez shares this...

When you look at abortion as a human-rights issues, which it is, this, sent to me by an anti-Rudy conservative, does leave you troubled:

Giuliani presidential campaign 1860:

CNN (Confederate News Network) interview:

GIULIANI: I'm in the same position I was 12 years ago when I ran for mayor, which is personally opposed to slavery, hate it, would advise that you hire someone rather than have a slave.

But it's your choice. It's an individual right. You get to make that choice. I don't think society should be putting you in jail for it.

BASH: You will appoint strict constructionist judges.

GIULIANI: Not necessarily that reason. I generally, that's my philosophy. It's the only way i can really see that we protect the separation of powers, personal liberties and by judges, i mean judges who will interpret the meaning of the constitution, not create it.

BASH: Many see that as code meaning it he is saying he wants to overturn Dred Scot.

GIULIANI: Dana, i don't wink and nod. I'm a direct person. I tell people what i think.

BASH: What's the direct answer.

GIULIANI: The direct answer is a strict constructionist judge can look at it and say wrongly decided, 3 years ago, we'll overturn it.

BASH: What's your personal view.

GIULIANI: They can look at it and say it's been the law for this period of time. Therefore, we're going to respect the precedent, conservatives can come to that conclusion, as well. I'd leave it up to them. Not have a litmus test on that. My overall view, judge who are going to struggle with the meaning of the constitution. And that applies to criminal justice issues, an applies to terrorism issues to whole host of issues to the second amendment and the individual right to bear arms. It's a whole group of issues.

BASH: One last question on slavery. You might have heard of u tube. There's something on u tube from 1848. It's flying around the internet. It's a clip of you.

GIULIANI: There must be public fund for slaves for poor people. We cannot deny people the right to make their own decision about slavery because they lack resources. I have also stated that I disagree with president's veto last week of public funds for slavery.

BASH: Is that also you're going to be your position as president.

GIULIANI: Probably. I have to re-examine all those issues and what was at stake there. Slavery is wrong. Generally, that's my view, slavery shouldn't happen. Personally, you should counsel people to that extent. Ultimately, it's a constitutional right and therefore, if it's a constitutional right ultimately, you have to make sure that people are protected.

BASH: So you support taxpayer money or public funds for slavery in some cases?

GIULIANI: If it would deprive someone of a constitutional right, yes. If that's the status of the law, then I would, yes.

Gubernatorial candidate John Arthur Eaves interview

With the Jackson Free Press.

Why are you running as a Democrat? What defines you as a Democrat?
I’m a Democrat because I’m a Christian, and I believe in the true calling of Christ. When he came here, what did he do? He did three things: He healed the sick—today we call that health care. He told us the truth, and to understand the truth you need to have an education. And he came to help the poor—we call that economic development. Mississippi is a good place to start for that. We’re the poorest in the nation.

I believe in the Good Samaritan. A lot of people do not realize that their responsibility is to be their brother’s keeper, but I believe the greatest form of serving is to serve your neighbor.

I’ve heard a few preachers say that Christians don’t vote Democrat.
I think the problem has been that the Republican Party has used Christian evangelicals for a long time, but I think that the evangelicals are waking up to this. I noticed that in the last round of national elections.

When government comes to the rescue

More than 18 months after Hurricane Katrina decimated the Gulf Coast, authorities are chipping away at a mountain of fraud cases that, by some estimates, involve thousands of people who bilked the federal government and charities out of hundreds of millions of dollars intended to aid storm victims.

The full scope of Katrina fraud may never be known, but this much is clear: It stretches far beyond the Gulf Coast, like the hurricane evacuees themselves.

o So far, more than 600 people have been charged in federal cases in 22 states -- from Florida to Oregon -- and the District of Columbia.

o The frauds range in value from a few thousand dollars to more than $700,000. Complaints are still pouring in and several thousand possible cases are in the pipeline -- enough work to keep authorities busy for five to eight years, maybe more.

"The reason we're seeing such widespread fraud is individuals were evacuated to all 50 states. Katrina was a national phenomenon," said David Dugas, U.S. attorney in Baton Rouge, La., and director of a command center that's part of a special Hurricane Katrina Fraud Task Force. "Everybody knew what was going on. Therefore, criminals knew what was going on."

o The Government Accountability Office has referred more than 22,000 potential cases of fraud to the Katrina task force, though officials say the majority probably will not pan out.

o In a recent audit, the GAO also concluded FEMA had recovered less than 1 percent of some $1 billion investigators claim was fraudulent aid.

Source: Sharon Cohen, "Flood of fraud; More than 600 people accused in Katrina cons," Associated Press/Redding Record-Searchlight, April 2, 2007.

How conservative is our Mississippi delegation to D.C.?

The National Journal offers perspective on how conservative the voting records our Congressmen in MS are:

Sen. Trent Lott 73.3

Sen. Thad Cochran 64.3

Rep. Roger Wicker 88.5

Rep. Chip Pickering 74.2

Rep. Gene Taylor 50.0

Rep. Bennie Thompson 33.3

Lott is slipping, as is Pickering. Thompson is gaining. Ouch, ouch, and hooray.